the F-35, does it make any sense?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

14 years 10 months

Posts: 1,206

well this is my link, where is your's ?

Where's my link to what? To Australian deal? How about DoD?

I mean are you really that intelligent that you think Boeing loves Australia so much that it will give away F18s without charging program price, which even US Gvt. payed/pays??
LOL, I can't believe we're still having this conversation??

Member for

17 years

Posts: 753

It sure DOES show that the program is having more issues than LM and some forum warriors want you to believe.

No it doesn't. All it shows is that Gates is bowing to political pressure to 'play it safe' & assume JETs 'worst case' 2 years of FURTHER delays are likely.

Where's your evidence for that claim? Oh, right, you have none. It must be the political pressure of the "We want to pay EVEN MORE for the F-35 development" brigade. And it's been said lefties were the Kool-Aid drinkers...

As for your claim of unit production costs: Yeah, awesome. Never mind that they achieved that by being severly late. Had they been forced to be on schedule with their LRIP lots, the cost would have been never near that. And you end up paying the increased costs those delays incurred. LM definitely deserves a pat on the back for that.

What ARE you babbling about? In fact the delays have been CAUSED in some part to pressure to meet milestones, causing airframes to be delivered (to the next stage) incomplete which in turn then took MORE time to finish later.

Your reading comprehension fails you yet again.
Indeed airframes haven't been ready when they should have been. Had LM been forced to complete them on time, costs would have risen. Production is on budget because it didn't have to be on time.

The reason you can flaunt the production costs being close to what they are supposed to is that they are delayed, which costs you money on the other part of the bill. Awesome achievement.

Also, for all your harping on about intellectual honesty you go about comparing fighters prices from different currency zones without considering PPP adjustment to derive their respective costs again. Where's your much desired intellectual honesty in that?

Nonsense.

You seem to have no idea how international currency relations work. Do you want to claim ignorance or dishonesty?

Anyone still defending the way the JSF program is being run, and the leeway and sloth LM has been awarded, after another delay and cost increase as expected in the next budget as being just fine and claiming that everything is all dandy, deserves the title of "Black Knight".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

Again...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/JSF121409.xml&headline=Pentagon%20Eyes%20More%20Cautious%20JSF%20Test%20Plan

Sorry but even LM & its supporters know full well & admit to delays & cost increases that have occured BUT the reality that the program is currently (& has been for some time now) trending BETTER, not worse (& worse is what would have to be the case for FURTHER 2-2.5 years of delays & cost overruns).


As far as I'm aware, the only thing that has been trending better are those production cost of specific LRIP lots. And these have already been discussed above.

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 1,741

Where's my link to what? To Australian deal? How about DoD?

I mean are you really that intelligent that you think Boeing loves Australia so much that it will give away F18s without charging program price, which even US Gvt. payed/pays??
LOL, I can't believe we're still having this conversation??

LOL,,,at first i thought you were just playing being silly, now i'm not so sure:confused:
from YOUR link, does this sound like a flyaway fitout ?

The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft, 48 F414-GE-402 installed engines, 6 F414-GE-402 spare engines, 24 AN/APG-79 Radar Systems, 24 AN/USQ-140 Multifunctional Informational Distribution System Low Volume Terminals, 30 AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electric Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets,
145 LAU-127 Guided Missile Launchers and
30 AN/PVS-9 Night Vision Goggles.
The proposal will include integration of the AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems,
Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems,
12 Joint Mission Planning Systems, and AN/ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoys. Also included are system integration and testing, software development/integration, test sets and support equipment, spare and repair parts, maintenance and pilot training, software support, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $3.1 billion.

Member for

14 years 10 months

Posts: 1,206

24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft

Flyaway
48 F414-GE-402 installed engines

Flyaway
6 F414-GE-402 spare engines

NON-Flyaway
24 AN/APG-79 Radar Systems

Flyaway
24 AN/USQ-140 Multifunctional Informational Distribution System Low Volume Terminals

Flyaway
30 AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electric Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets

Flyaway
145 LAU-127 Guided Missile Launchers

Flyaway
30 AN/PVS-9 Night Vision Goggles

Flyaway
The proposal will include integration of the AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems

Flyaway
Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems

Flyaway
12 Joint Mission Planning Systems

NON-Flyaway
AN/ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoys

Flyaway

***********

Now, if you think that 6 spare engines and 12 Joint Mission Planning Systems (whatever that is) plus whatever services, cost 1.5 times over the rest then good for you. The rest, (services) are largely covered in program prices, although different manufacturers offer different packages and I can't tell which exactly goes where, but as soon as they are here you can be fairly sure the program price is in question.

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 1,741

I don't get it??

Flyaway

Flyaway

NON-Flyaway

Flyaway

Flyaway

Flyaway

Flyaway

Flyaway

Flyaway

Flyaway

NON-Flyaway

Flyaway

***********

Now, if you think that 6 pare engines and 12 Joint Mission Planning Systems (whatever that is) cost 1.5 times over the rest then good for you.


got a link to your claim that all of what you said is fly away actually is ?

you also forgot to include this
145 LAU-127 Guided Missile Launchers
Also included are system integration and testing, software development/integration, test sets and support equipment, spare and repair parts, maintenance and pilot training, software support, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $3.1 billion
and who ever typed it up, they forgot the 18 AN/ASQ- 228 (V2) Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pods

again i refer back to the boeing contract of about 55m, the same as the usn pays
http://www.defense.gov/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=3613

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 694

The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

...

The estimated cost is $3.1 billion.

Hello guys, I don't mean to interfere, but for the shake of the conversation, I would like to point out that there has been a second DSCA notification, this time for Super Hornets for Brazil.

This time it was seven billion $$$ for 36 airframes.

Here is the link: http://www.deagel.com/news/FMS-Brazil-Seeks-36-FA-18EF-Super-Hornets_n000006453.aspx

My point is that from DSCA notifications alone, we cannot easily exract useful conclusions.

Best regards.

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 1,741

Hello guys, I don't mean to interfere, but for the shake of the conversation, I would like to point out that there has been a second DSCA notification, this time for Super Hornets for Brazil.

This time it was seven billion $$$ for 36 airframes.

Here is the link: http://www.deagel.com/news/FMS-Brazil-Seeks-36-FA-18EF-Super-Hornets_n000006453.aspx

My point is that from DSCA notifications alone, we cannot easily exract useful conclusions.

Best regards.


most of us agree with you,
cola is just playing a game, even he knows you cant just take a final price, in our case some 120 mil and say ,,it isnt flyaway 55m is it
the brazil 190 mil is probably different in some way, but i know aussie got a bargan with their buy, did i tell you we paid the same prices as what the usn pays :diablo:

Member for

14 years 10 months

Posts: 1,206

got a link to your claim that all of what you said is fly away actually is ?

Go the link from my previous posts (Sintra linked it too) in which there was a flyaway breakdown for F18 (page 23). I don't know on which list each and every item exactly is, but onboard avionics generally is (external jammers NO, for example) incalculated to flyaway price. "Flyaway" aircraft is approx. "empty-equipped" category, minus any fluids and gun ammo.

you also forgot to include this
145 LAU-127 Guided Missile Launchers

LAU-127 are weapons (missiles) adapters and should also part of flyaway price (6 per plane). But even if it's not, LAU-127 is in $30-50k per piece class, so it really doesn't matter all that much.

Also included are system integration and testing, software development/integration, test sets and support equipment, spare and repair parts, maintenance and pilot training, software support, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $3.1 billion

Paper clips, T-shirt and caps with Boeing logo on it. Anything worth mentioning would have it's designation and quantity.

again i refer back to the boeing contract of about 55m, the same as the usn pays
http://www.defense.gov/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=3613

USN (US Gvt.) payed it's development share when contracted Boeing to develop F18E/F and now pays only flyaway costs. Same goes for French Gvt with Rafale, etc,...

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 1,741

USN (US Gvt.) payed it's development share when contracted Boeing to develop F18E/F and now pays only flyaway costs. Same goes for French Gvt with Rafale, etc,...

it seems to burn you that the usa eats the r&d costs and sell at actual cost and the 3% fms the exception being the f-35 partnerships,

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432


145 LAU-127 Guided Missile Launchers
30 AN/PVS-9 Night Vision Goggles
Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems

Not flyaway. They're not part of the aircraft, or permanently fitted equipment.

AN/ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoys

Mixture of flyaway & non-flyaway. The decoy itself is expendable, single-use, & is no more part of the flyaway fit than ammunition.

30 AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electric Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets

6 spares, non-flyaway.

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 1,426


BUT ARE PAYED EITHER WAY, SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT? If are payed later, they can only be more expensive, so the best bet is that will be payed together with flyaway bills.

That exactly the opposite of what you claimed DEVELOPMENT COSTS ARE NOT TACKED ON TOP OF PROCUREMENTS COSTS - instead that DEVELOPMENT COSTS & PROCUREMENTS COSTS are SEPARATE COSTS payed separately. PROCUREMENTS COSTS are payed by those who develope the system (as the system is being developed) & PROCUREMENTS COSTS are by those who produre the resulting system. For the JSF the PROCUREMENTS COSTS are (& HAVE BEEN) being payed by the program's eight partner nations while PROCUREMENTS COSTS will be payed by any/all who eventually procure it.


You don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about, do you?

Quite the opposite.


No pfcem, what you are doing though is being stupid, again. It doesn't matter what you think the flyaway price is, but what it really is.
What you permanently do though is waving your baby F35's flyaway price from 2025, since the program is enormously expensive and you're trying to make it look more affordable than it actually is.

No, YOU are being stupid, pulling numbers out of your rear end when estimates BY THOSE PAYING FOR IT have been made AND LRIP costs are BELOW THOSE ESTIMATES!


The fact is, again, Rafale costs $82.3m (~$130-140m), EF $81.8m (~$120-150m), but F35 $172m-197m - page 33 (~$XXXm) of a flyaway price (program price within brackets), which is actually more expensive than F22 and the projections for the 2010 still put F35 more expensive than F22. F35's flyaway price is higher than Rafale's or EF's program price.

GOOD GOD MAN. Of course the F-35 is expensive NOW, less than 50 have been built BUT the production rate is ramping up & the cost is dropping with eanch & every lot (year). Engage your brain for once & look at how much the 1st lots of F/A-18E/Fs cost vs what more recent lots cost now & what the 1st lots of F-22s cost vs what lots 7-9 cost. In BOTH cases the cost has been/was cut by MORE than half.


LOL...get a brain and learn what flyaway cost is before returning to this board.

I know what flyaway cost is.

***


I was discussing the unit recurring fly away cost,

Nice try.


and i think that those 58 million US$ for the F-35A are without ancilary equipment...

$58.7 million was F-35A unit flyaway cost in FY2008 dollars. Which as I have noted before works out nicely to ~$70-75 million in FY2014 dollars.

***


One problem identified some time ago is that if an export customer orders F-35's for delivery say in 2015, the price will be much higher than if those were supplied in 2020. With program delays and a reluctance by buyers to purchase at early LRIP prices if they can avoid it by letting others buy the aircraft from early production batches, the point at which prices will fall keeps shifting to the right.

The prices started falling with the 2nd lot & have continued to fall with each successive lot.

***


gee only 5 or so years of squabling to go before the f-35 enters a stable sell price through high production of about 100m average for the 3 of them, total paid in today dollars
this is better than a soap opera

F-35A: $70-75 million (FY2014 dollars)
F-35B/C: $80-90 million (FY2014 dollars)

THAT is the projection & LRIP lots are BELOW projections...

***


well this is my link, where is your's ?
i think before the engine contract was a subcontract from boeing

http://www.defense.gov/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=3613

McDonnell Douglas Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $1,319,574,240 not-to-exceed modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-04-C-0014) for the procurement of 24 F/A-18Fs and Alternate Mission Equipment (AME) for the Government of Australia under the Foreign Military Sales Program . Work will be performed in St. Louis, Mo. (28.7 percent); El Segundo, Calif. (25 percent); Goleta, Calif. (8.6 percent); Clearwater, Fla. (2.3 percent); Greenlawn, N.Y. (2.1 percent); Burnsville, Minn. (2.1 percent); Johnson City, N.Y. (2.1 percent); Brooklyn Heights, Ohio (2 percent); Vandalia, Ohio (2 percent); Grand Rapids, Mich. (2 percent); South Bend, Ind. (2 percent); Mesa, Ariz. (1.8 percent); Fort Worth, Texas (1.8 percent); and at various locations across the United States (17.5 percent), and is expected to be completed in July 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

not to exceed instead of firm fixed, heck we may even get some change, i luv it when our friends are nice to us
i wonder how much less that the $54.982 mil per plane it will be ?

this is the full contract that navy had and split our 24 out of, these numbers are too big for me, can you check and make sure we pai9d the same as the usn
McDonnell Douglas Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded an $8,562,099,934 fixed-price with economic price adjustment contract for the multi-year procurement of F/A-18E/F airframes. This Multi-Year II (MYP II) contract will cover the procurement of 210 F/A-18E/F aircraft over a 5-year period. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Mo. (60 percent), and El Segundo, Calif. (40 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-04-C-0014).


That is just the airframe, NOT the entire flyaway (much less weapon system or what ever cost you prefer).

***


Where's your evidence for that claim? Oh, right, you have none. It must be the political pressure of the "We want to pay EVEN MORE for the F-35 development" brigade. And it's been said lefties were the Kool-Aid drinkers...

Where's your evidence for it being ANYTHING other than my educated guess as to what is ACTUALLY going on? Oh, right, you have none.


Your reading comprehension fails you yet again.
Indeed airframes haven't been ready when they should have been. Had LM been forced to complete them on time, costs would have risen. Production is on budget because it didn't have to be on time.

The reason you can flaunt the production costs being close to what they are supposed to is that they are delayed, which costs you money on the other part of the bill. Awesome achievement.


Your comprehension fails you yet again.

The early lot airfraimes were taking longer to complete than projected but in order to meet milestones, the airframes were passed on to later phases of production BEFORE all of the previous phase work was complete. And BECAUSE of that, they were not only delayed in final completion, they were MORE EXPENSIVE than they would have been if completed 'on time'.


The reason you can flaunt the production costs being close to what they are supposed to is that they are delayed, which costs you money on the other part of the bill. Awesome achievement.

No the resaon I flaunt the production cost is because THAT is the cost that matters. IF the early airframes had been completed 'on time' they would have been LESS EXPENSIVE.


You seem to have no idea how international currency relations work. Do you want to claim ignorance or dishonesty?

Quite the opposite.


As far as I'm aware, the only thing that has been trending better are those production cost of specific LRIP lots. And these have already been discussed above.

Good God man, the problems in production have been THE cause of the delays!

Member for

14 years 10 months

Posts: 1,206

@pfcem,
Is it really possible that you are so stupid that after 2 or 3 pages you don't see what am I trying to tell you??
If you are, please abandon forum for being stupid and if you are not, abandon forum for being liar.
Either way, go somewhere else and bother someone else, ok?
I can go trolling too, but I'd like to spend some quality time in this forum and learn something, without parasites like you clawing for attention...
With you here, it's obviously impossible and your responses ceased to show patterns of intelligence, so I'm wondering what kind of a life form are you? Are you a virus, perhaps? I mean those have characteristics of live and still nature and can't be killed as can't be you apparently.

Here's an example of what you managed to conclude from my earlier posting???...I don't know how's that even possible and I don't know if you understand English in the first place, but I'd say no.
So here's a piece of advice. Go learn language, get a brain and return, or better don't.

That exactly the opposite of what you claimed DEVELOPMENT COSTS ARE NOT TACKED ON TOP OF PROCUREMENTS COSTS - instead that DEVELOPMENT COSTS & PROCUREMENTS COSTS are SEPARATE COSTS payed separately. PROCUREMENTS COSTS are payed by those who develope the system (as the system is being developed) & PROCUREMENTS COSTS are by those who produre the resulting system. For the JSF the PROCUREMENTS COSTS are (& HAVE BEEN) being payed by the program's eight partner nations while PROCUREMENTS COSTS will be payed by any/all who eventually procure it.

Come on kid, we've been here what, 5/10 times over?? Do you really think playing dumb (or just being dumb) and posting garbage that has nothing to do with other ppl points, is enough to stay on this board?

Here's another example:

That is just the airframe, NOT the entire flyaway (much less weapon system or what ever cost you prefer).

Just an airframe?? I don't get it. United States Navy (not me) says (at page 23), ~$55m is flyaway price, United States Navy breaks down F18's price on items (airframe is ~$35m) and you still manage to contest that?????
What kind of an imbecile are you?? Humor me, I'd really like to learn.

it seems to burn you that the usa eats the r&d costs and sell at actual cost and the 3% fms the exception being the f-35 partnerships,

LOL, it doesn't "burn" me, because it isn't true. Frankly, I don't know what AUS bought F18F for anyway, but it's your money and everyone is entitled to do with his money, whatever he wants. It's just funny to observe your state of blissful ignorance. That's all.

*************
@swerve,
I'm not sure about your claim, but I am not sure of mine either, so I'll let it go. Anyway, it's irrelevant, since neither of those items poses a price impact large enough to justify F18F flyaway price only, for AUS.
My point is AUS payed dev.costs share, like any other customer and that's all. I mean, have you ever managed to buy a car on factory price?? Those prices are irrelevant and aircraft manufacturers publish them only to present their product more affordable, in a hope to score a bigger sale.

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 4,619

i reckon if the F35 was totally american then people would be happier to pay for it.

The fact that the British were in on it from the beginning probably causes people to frown.

just a thought, but it doesn't make sense why US support for the programme is so fickle.

Its a fantastic aircraft in all forms and ticks a lot of boxes for the US.

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 4,619

i confess its not something that i put alot of thought into, but what you say makes sense on all levels.

I don't see how its spells the end for Typhoon or Rafale though. I would have thought that by the time the F35 moves beyond its initial operation configuration these projects will naturally be at a replacement stage anyway (insofaras governments will be thinking about what replaces them, and that wont be the F35).

The F35, particularly the B variant is a survivor and will prove to be a very long lived system in my eyes.

Member for

15 years 11 months

Posts: 266

when has a new aircraft ever been on-time

CAC Boomerang springs to mind, initial design to first flight in just over 90 days, after the team were given 6+ months timeframe

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 3,765

Nice try.

$58.7 million was F-35A unit flyaway cost in FY2008 dollars. Which as I have noted before works out nicely to ~$70-75 million in FY2014 dollars.

Oh Bull...

WHAT FLY AWAY COST?

There are severall you know?
Unless the 58,7 million $ includes the ancilary equipment, THAT´S the recurring Fly Way Cost the one that for the Super Hornet is LESS than 55 million $...

And by the way, where have you got that number (58,7 million $)? Because if its were i am thinking that you got it, newsflash, it was completely and hopelesly outdated (just ask a certain David R. Heinz) a week after it was made public.

Your turn.

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 1,426

Cola1973 has once again proven that they are not worth responding too & that it was a complete waist of time/effort to think they could have ever gotten such a simple concept as DEVELOPEMENT COSTS are payed separately from PROCUREMENT COSTS rather than tacked on top of them during purchase.

***


Oh Bull...

WHAT FLY AWAY COST?

There are severall you know?
Unless the 58,7 million $ includes the ancilary equipment, THAT´S the recurring Fly Way Cost the one that for the Super Hornet is LESS than 55 million $...

And by the way, where have you got that number (58,7 million $)? Because if its were i am thinking that you got it, newsflash, it was completely and hopelesly outdated (just ask a certain David R. Heinz) a week after it was made public.

Your turn.


The contract flyaway price - what would be listed in the budget line item as "Flyaway Unit Cost". If it were Recurring Flyaway Cost or Nonrecurring Flyaway Cost it would have said so.

Earth to Sintra...I am the one who started the topic on this forum about how the negotiations for the multi-nation contract that was to have set the flyaway cost of LRIP F-35As for the member nations at $58.7 million (FY2008 dollars) had fallen through - how I felt it was bad news for the program. :rolleyes:

Member for

14 years 10 months

Posts: 1,206

Cola1973 has once again proven that they are not worth responding too & that it was a complete waist of time/effort to think they could have ever gotten such a simple concept as DEVELOPEMENT COSTS are payed separately from PROCUREMENT COSTS rather than tacked on top of them during purchase.

Well pfcem, you've proven yourself unworthy of responding as soon as I joined this forum (and that's only what I saw), so I thought it's obvious we've past that point.
I told you I'm gonna hammer you and that's what I'm doing (and it's gonna get worse). You see, everyone can go verbally berserk and while most ppl exercise self discipline and decency threshold, for some strange reason you think you don't have to and you're an exception...Well, you're not. ;)

Now, it's not that you won't reply me, but you have nothing to reply in the first place, since you hung your self by the neck as usual with your recent posts.

Pfcem, I see you're still not showing any brain activity and so here we go again.

1) Both flyaway cost, development cost (minus current amortization) and other costs, must be payed for a customer to receive a product (F35). This is called program price and in the end you get just an aircraft without weapons, support, training. This is the same price you'll get when you buy a car in the salon.
2) No one ever buys product for flyway price, not even a design owner - US Gvt., but for a program price.
3) US, being major shareholder in JSF consortium, own majority of JSF design (proportional to their dev.share portfolio) and pay the smallest program price once the aircraft gets manufactured, which is in this case almost a flyaway price. AUS and other, small participating members don't, since their initial dev.share is much smaller than US'.

So again, what does it matter if bills are payed separately or together (it's all program price) and do you have any point apart from obvious trolling and mental inability to put a concise comment on the point?
Again, even if some partner nations decide to delay payment of either portion of program price, they'll pay more in the end since..."cache+upfront" = cheap, "loan+payment delay" = expensive.

Stop pushing baby prices for F35 since they aren't related with reality, but marketing. It's interesting to observe, how the US' procurement document (linked on several places here) displays F35's flyaway price of ~$172m in thousands of dollars, while F18E/F flyaway price of ~$55m is given in single dollars...Talking about marketing/LOL.
And one final thing. No one (not even LM) can put a plane's price on the table farther than next year's, since it hasn't been developed yet and if JET2's prediction comes true of an extra year and ~$16b, then we're looking at significant price increase offset.

Am I typing too fast again, or you'll understand this time??

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 10,217

And one final thing. No one (not even LM) can put a plane's price on the table farther than next year's, since it hasn't been developed yet and if JET2's prediction comes true of an extra year and ~$16b, then we're looking at significant price increase offset.
Very true.. All these minimalistic price quotes are just projections from old times.. Much has changed since then and much will.

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 1,426


Very true.. All these minimalistic price quotes are just projections from old times.. Much has changed since then and much will.

...but LRIP is BELOW said projections. Showing that dispite all the changes the actual production/procurement cost of the F-35 is NOT >50% higher than projections (which is where it would have to be for full rate production to end up >$100 million flyaway) as the naysayers wish it were but instead tracking in line (a few % below in fact) with the projections.